education social promotion what debate

NCREL Draft 04-8-99

Education and Social Promotion: What is the Debate?by Angela R. Rudolph

with Jack Jennings

I. Introduction

The debate surrounding social promotion and student retention has recently

been placed in the public spotlight. In January 1999, President Clinton announced

his new education agenda during the State of the Union address. At the top of that

list, Clinton proposed adding a provision to the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA) that would encourage states and school districts to end social

promotion. In the past year, four states-California, Delaware, South Carolina, and

Wisconsin-have enacted policies that link student promotion to state examinations

(Johnston, 1999). Governor George W. Bush of Texas also called for the end of

social promotion in his January 1999 State of the State address. His proposal would

require third- fifth- and eighth-grade students to pass state exams in reading and

mathematics in order to be promoted to the next grade.

In preparation for the upcoming seminars, the North Central Regional Educational

Laboratory (NCREL) has prepared this issue paper to review the following:

• The leading research on the social promotion/retention debate

• The current promotion system in use by the Chicago Public School system

• The no social promotion legislation that was recently enacted by the Illinois

General Assembly

II. Social Promotion vs. Retention – Available Research

Since the 1970s, the educational community and the public have debated whether

social promotion or retention can end low student achievement. The practice of

passing students on to the next grade who have failed to master part or all of the

grade-level curriculum is referred to as social promotion. Retention, on the other

hand, requires students to repeat the same grade in order to master what has not

been learned (IDRA, 1999). With public attention focused on the reforms in

2NCREL Draft 04-8-99

Chicago, grade retention has wrestled attention away from social promotion. These

events have also intensified the debate within the education community. A review of

current literature reveals two consistent themes and mixed results regarding the

effects of social promotion and retention:

1. Retention has a negative effect on student achievement, attitude toward

schools, school attendance, and student drop out rates.

2. Social promotion has a negative effect on student achievement and it

assures failure by not making sure that students are prepared.

1. Retention: Negative Effects and Mixed Results

Opponents of grade retention argue that it has a negative effect on student

improvement, increases student drop-out rates, and causes students to develop a

negative attitude toward school (Holmes, 1989; Reynolds, 1992; Roderick, 1995;

Rumberger, 1987; Shepard & Smith, 1987, 1990). In fact, much of the available

research also argues that retention is more likely to be administered to students

who are male, poor, of a racial minority, attend school in an urban area, and/or are

considered to be behavioral problems by their teachers. The three studies

described below further describe the arguments against grade retention.

A 1987 study by Lorrie A. Shepard and Mary Lee Smith discusses the effects of

retention on kindergarten students’ achievement and affective outcomes at the end

of first grade. The study analyzed 40 kindergarten students who had been retained

at schools with a high retention rate. A control group of promoted students was

established with children who matched on socioeconomic and achievement levels

from schools that did not practice retention. Both groups were compared at the end

of first grade on a number of outcome measures, including teacher ratings on

reading achievement, math achievement, social maturity, learning self-concept, and

the appropriateness of attention to school work as well as standardized test scores

in reading and math. Finally, parents of the retained and promoted students were

interviewed to determine each “. . . parent’s perceptions of their child’s readiness


when first entering kindergarten, the nature of screening and orientation to school,

and perceptions of progress in kindergarten and first grade” (p. 351). Shepard and

Smith also interviewed parents who refused to have their children repeat

kindergarten and parents whose children repeated first grade.

The results of the study found little difference between retained and promoted

students at the end of first grade. Teacher ratings of both groups’ attention levels,

learner self-concept, math, reading, and social maturity showed no difference.

There also was no difference in the reading scores of promoted and retained

students on standardized test scores. However, the retained students did see a gain

of one grade level in math as measured by the standardized tests. Parent interviews

of both retained and promoted students illustrated that parents also do not believe

there is an academic benefit to retaining their children. In addition, Smith and

Shepard found that the parents of retained children saw a poorer attitude toward

school from their children than the control group/promoted students. Based on the

lack of differences between retained and promoted students, the authors concluded

extra-year programs did not provide students with the intended assistance these

programs were supposed to provide.

C.T. Holmes’ 1989 meta-analysis of 63 grade retention studies is considered one of

the leading reviews of grade retention research. The Holmes review looked at

studies that “. . . (a) presented the results of original research of the effects on

pupils of retention in kindergarten, elementary, or junior high school grades; (b)

contained sufficient data to allow for the calculation or estimation of an effect size;

and (c) described an investigation with an identifiable comparison group” (p. 18). Of

the 63 studies, 54 reported overall negative effects of retention, 9 reported positive

effects. In the negative-effect studies, academic achievement was cited has the

area harmed the most by retention.

Holmes’ review of the nine positive-effect studies included an analysis of the


characteristics of these studies. He found that positive-effect studies involved

students from suburban settings, lower-middle to upper-middle class families, and

IQ scores at or above 100. Additionally, few if any students were from racial minority

groups. The retention programs used in the positive-effect studies had a high level

of parental involvement and retainees were identified early and provided special

assistance. Many of the programs also developed individual education plans for

each child, and students were placed in classrooms with low student-teacher ratios.

Holmes further noted that while these studies reported academic gains due to

retention, any advances by the students during their second year in grade

diminished over time.

Arthur J. Reynold’s (1992) study of the effects of early grade retention on reading

and mathematics achievement, teacher ratings and perceived self-competence also

resulted in criticisms of retention. Reynolds’ study followed 1,255 low-income

Chicago children who were a part of the Longitudinal Study of Children at Risk. The

study used student scores on the Iowa Test for Basic Skills to track reading and

mathematics achievement. Teacher and student interviews were employed to

determine student adjustment and self-perceptions of school competence. Just over

20 percent (20.4%) of the group were retained at least once from kindergarten to

third grade.

Reynolds found that retention had “. . . significant negative effects on reading and

mathematics achievement but positive effects on teacher ratings and self-

perceptions of competence” (p. 111). Reynolds did note that the positive effects on

teacher ratings and self-perceptions were negligible, and the findings regarding

self-perceptions were largely found with first grade students. Academically, the

retained students never improved their performance to meet the levels of their

promoted peers. He further concluded that for most students retention has either

negative or negligible effects on achievement and teacher ratings, and that the

negative effects appear to increase over time.


Proponents of retention, on the other hand, cite retention as a necessary measure

to making sure students are equipped with the basic knowledge and skills to

prepare them for the future. They further argue that retention has a positive effect

on student achievement and attitude toward school. The two studies described

below describe the arguments against social promotion.

2. Social Promotion: Negative Effects and Mixed Results

A 1994 study by Karl Alexander, Doris Entwisle, and Susan Dauber followed 775

students from the Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS). Alexander, et al.,

used the Beginning School Study (BSS) as the basis for their study because it

contained information on student academic performance and student personal

development.

Students were randomly selected from 20 schools within BCPSS and were followed

for eight years from arrival in the first grade in 1982. While students in the study

were representative of all racial and economic groups, the authors note the majority

were African-American and of a low socio-economic group. The researchers

gathered data from school academic records, student test scores, and interviews

with students, parents, and teachers. At the end of the study, 60 percent of the

students (468) remained in the BCPSS. Thirty percent of the total group (238 of

775) had not been retained at the end of year eight. Of the students who remained

in BCPSS, 53 percent (248 of 468) had been retained at least once.

Retained students’ academic performance, pre- and post-retention, was evaluated

by using test scores and report card grades. Retainees’ post-retention performance

also was evaluated against their performance before retention, the performance of

academically similar students who were promoted, the performance of all never-

retained students, and the performance of students who were promoted but retained

at a later grade level (4-7). Using these criteria, the researchers argued that


students who are retained in the first grade (presumably students who struggle the

most academically) are helped very little by retention. Students who are retained in

the second or third grades are helped the most by retention. Additionally, the

authors argue that academic self-image and attitudes toward school are not

negatively affected by retention. In fact in student interviews, student attitudes about

themselves and academics seemed to improve after retention, especially during the

failed year.

In, a 1994 study, Denise Gottfredson, Carolyn Fink, and Nanette Grahman found

retention has positive effects in their analysis of sixth- and seventh-grade student

attitudes and attachments toward school based on whether they had been retained

or promoted. Their study compared retained and promoted students with

comparable academic achievement on the math and reading sections of the

district’s spring 1988 standardized achievement tests. Furthermore, at the end of

each academic quarter teachers were asked to rate the disruption level and level of

student attendance to work. The authors found that retained students showed a

greater attachment toward school and exhibited fewer negative school behaviors

than similar achieving students who had been promoted. The authors further argued

that the retention of high-risk students could lead to a reduction of negative

behaviors and a delay of behavioral problems later on. Additionally, they stated that

while retained elementary school students may experience a difference in how their

peers treat them there is no evidence that the difference is harmful or negative. In

fact, their research suggested that retained students may “enjoy higher status than

non-retained students in secondary school” (p. 768).

III. No Social Promotion in the Chicago Public Schools

As one of the nation’s largest urban school districts, the Chicago Public

School (CPS) system was once considered one of the nation’s worst districts. But

as evidenced by a mention in President Clinton’s 1999 State of the Union address,

Chicago is no longer cited as the model for failure and low standards. The CPS


policy ending social promotion has been specifically singled out as a model for the

nation.

In August 1996, CPS instituted a promotion policy, Bridging the Gap, with a

new set of performance standards. According to CPS’s policy, students in the third,

sixth, and eighth grades are required to attend summer school if they fail to meet

the following conditions: (1) pass the minimum required standards in reading and

mathematics on the Iowa Test for Basic Skills (ITBS); (2) receive a passing grade

in reading and math; and (3) acquire fewer than 20 unexcused absences. In an

effort to prepare students to retake the ITBS, summer school classes emphasize

building skills in mathematics and reading. If students meet the minimum standard

after the ITBS retest, they are promoted to the next grade. If not, students are

retained in their current grade. Eighth graders who are 15 and do not meet the

minimum ITBS standards are enrolled in alternative schools called transition

centers. Students at the centers focus on remediation in mathematics and reading

during their first semester. The second semester and summer school is spent

earning high school credit. In 1998, the Chicago Public Schools introduced the

Making the Grade program. If retained students could demonstrate sufficient

progress in their classroom work and on the ITBS, students can be double promoted

back to their peer-age grade. (Chicago Public Schools, 1998; Pick, 1998).

In 1997, approximately 41,000 students were required to participate in

Chicago’s summer school program. Of that number, approximately 16,000 students

passed the ITBS following summer school, 17,000 students did not pass the ITBS

and were retained, and 7,000 students did not complete the program and were

automatically retained (Kelly, 1999).

Since its implementation, Chicago’s promotion policy has encountered some

severe criticism (House, 1998; Katz, 1999). Part of that criticism is due to the lack of

outside research on Chicago’s retention program. However, a new three-year study

by the Consortium on Chicago School Research is underway and anxiously


awaited. The initial results of their statistical analysis are expected in the summer of

1999.

In June 1998, Catalyst, the leading independent education publication in

Chicago, leveled charges that the latest gains in citywide ITBS scores were inflated

due to the district’s new retention policy. Reading gains were reported for students

in five grades. Catalyst argued the results were due to the fact that students

retained in the third, sixth, and eigth grades had received an extra year of

instruction. Secondly, student gains in the fourth and seventh grade were thought to

be the result of these classes having fewer low-achieving students than in past

years (Duffrin, 1998). In response to these charges, the Consortium on Chicago

School Research analyzed the retention patterns and achievement gains for the

1997 group of students in grades three, six, and eight to determine how retention

affected the citywide ITBS results (Easton, Jacob, Luppescu, Roderick, 1998). The

researchers found the promotion policy had not distorted the 1997 ITBS scores. By

adjusting for the effects of retained students, the researchers found that 38 percent

of students scored at or above national norms in math. This number is still above

the 1997 score of 35.9%. Gains were also posted in reading with scores at or above

national levels, and up from the 30.3 percent posted in 1997.

IV. State of Illinois Social Promotion Policy

School districts shall not promote students to the next higher grade levelbased upon age or any other social reasons not related to the academicperformance of the students. On or before September 1, 1998, schoolboards shall adopt and enforce a policy on promotion, as they deemnecessary to ensure that students meet local goals and objectives and canperform at the expected grade level prior to promotion. Decisions to promoteor retain students in any classes shall be based on successful completion ofthe curriculum, attendance, performance based on Illinois Goals andAssessment Program tests and the Iowa Test of Basic of Skills, or othertesting or any other criteria established by the school board. Studentsdetermined by the local district to not qualify for promotion to the next highergrade shall be provided remedial assistance, which may include, but shallnot be limited to, a summer bridge program of no less than 90 hours, tutorialsessions, increased or concentrated instructional time, modifications toinstructional materials, and retention in grade. (Illinois P.A. 86-721; 89-610,§


5; 90-548, § 5-915.)

In August 1996, P.A. 89-610 was passed and signed into law to discourage

social promotion in the state of Illinois. In February 1998, P.A. 90-548 amended the

earlier law and completely prohibited social promotion in the state. While school

boards were required to adopt policies on promotion by September 1, 1998, it

should be noted that the legislation did not provide disincentives or incentives for

districts to follow the law. Additionally, neither the Illinois State Board of Education

nor any other state agency was named as the compliance agency for the new

policy. The decision to promote or retain students in Illinois schools allows local

boards to employ a variety of measures of assessment. These include state, district,

or classroom assessments; student performance on the ITBS; or other testing

criteria established by the local school board. In the event a student is retained,

districts are required to provide remedial assistance.

V. Alternatives to Social Promotion and Retention

With no resolution to the debate between retention and social promotion

advocates in sight, increased attention is being given to alternative strategies. A

1991 study by Nancy Karweit concluded “. . . neither retention or social promotion

are satisfactory responses to the need to provide appropriate instruction for low-

performing students” (p. iii). Research by Linda Darling-Hammond (1998), Anne

Wheelock (1998), and the American Federation of Teachers (1997), supports the

need to develop alternatives to social promotion and retention in the form of better

teacher training and professional development, smaller class size, individualized

student support, better student assessments, and flexibility in student instruction.

In response to the criticisms of retention strategies and the research on

alternative strategies, a number of cities have added some level of early

identification and intervention strategies to their promotion policies. Intervention

strategies can include: diagnostic assessments, consultation by school teams,

individualized education plans, additional instruction (tutoring, after school


programs, extended day), alternative instructional strategies, changes in teacher or

classroom assignment, student support services, and parental involvement

(Baltimore City Public School System, 1998). For example, the Boston Public

School’s promotion policy is supplemented with early identification and intervention

strategies for at-risk students, and Texas Governor George W. Bush included

similar preventative strategies in his promotion initiative, Student Success (See

Appendix A for more information).

VI. Conclusions

While grade retention is currently the popular policy response to low student

achievement, research indicates there are mixed results on the benefits and

disadvantages to retention and social promotion.

Criticisms of retention include negative effects on student achievement, increases in

student drop-out rates, and negative effects on student attitudes toward school.

Available research also argues that retention is more likely to be administered to

students who are male, poor, of a racial minority, attend school in an urban area,

and/or are considered to be behavioral problems by their teachers.

Early identification of at-risk students and pre-retention interventions are most

commonly cited as the best alternatives to social promotion and grade retention.

The most commonly employed pre-retention intervention strategies are diagnostic

assessments, consultation by school teams, individualized education plans,

additional instruction (tutoring, after school programs, extended day), alternative

instructional strategies, changes in teacher or classroom assignment, student

support services, and parental involvement.


Appendix A

District/State Early Identification and Intervention Strategies

Boston Public Schools Policy

4. Parents must be notified of the name and phone number of the school staff memberwho will act as their administrative liaison.

5. If a teacher suspects a child is at risk of not meeting subject/grade-level standards,parents must be notified by mid-October in writing and the student must be referred tothe appropriate designated staff person for support services.

6. Once a student has been identified, parents and the designated staffer consider avariety of options to resolve the student’s problem (e.g., examining and alteringinstructional strategies/materials, tutoring, schedule/teacher change, referral to othersupport services).

7.If by the end of the first term the problem persists and students are at risk of retention,additional options will be considered. These include: referral to safety-net or alternativeprograms for more intensive services, access to additional instructional time (during day,extended day, or summer school), referral to special education. (Boston Public Schools,1998)

Proposed Texas Promotion Initiative(The Texas initiative focuses on reading proficiency)

1.Schools must perform a reading inventory on students in kindergarten, first, and secondgrade.2.Students who perform below grade level are provided with “accelerated” instruction,which can include summer school, extended day programs, or tutorials. 3. Student participation is required, and the state provides a $670 stipend to schools

per student.4. Teachers are offered the opportunity to participate in summer seminars, which

focus on reading instruction and the science of reading. 5. A stipend of $150/day is provided by the state (Office of the Governor, 1999)


References

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (1994). On the success or

failure: A reassessment of the effects of retention in the primary grades. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

American Federation of Teachers. (1997). Passing on failure: District

promotion policies and practices. Washington, DC: Author.

Baltimore City Public School System. (1998, Nov.13). Promotion policy study

Draft I: Work in progress. Baltimore: Author.

Boston Public Schools. (1998). Promotion policy. Boston: Boston Public

Schools.

Chicago Public Schools. (1998). Expand timed activities. [Online] Retrieved

March 22, 1999, from the World Wide Web:

http://www.cps.k12.il.us/Trending_Up/Supporting_Progress/Expand/expand.html

Gottfredson, D. C., Fink, C. M., & Graham, N. (1994). Grade retention and

problem behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 31, (4), 761-784.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Alternatives to grade retention. The School

Adminstrator, 55, (7), 18-21.

Duffrin, E. (1998). Test scores jump, retention a factor. Catalyst, 9, (9), 26.

Easton, J. Q., Jacob, B., Luppescu, S., Roderick, M. (1998, December).

Adjusting citywide ITBS scores for student retention in grades three, six, and eight

(Research Data Brief: Academic Productivity Series). Chicago: The Consortium on

Chicago School Research.


Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of

research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research

and policies on retention (pp. 16—33). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

House, E. R. (1998, November). The predictable failure of Chicago’s student

retention program. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado-Boulder, School of

Education.

Illinois Public Act Final grade promotion. P.A. 86-721; 89-610,§ 5; 90-548, § 5-915

(1998).

Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA). (1999). Failing our

children: Finding alternatives to in-grade retention. (Policy Brief). San Antonio, TX:

Author.

Johnston, R. C. (1999, March 3). Texas moves ahead on social promotion.

Education Week, 18, ( 25) p. 26, 32.

Karweit, N. L. (1991). Repeating a grade: Time to grow or denial of

opportunity. (Report No. 16). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University-Center for

Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

Katz, P. M. (1999). Chicago’s brand of retention summer school all wrong.

Catalyst [Online], Retrieved March 23, 1999, from the World Wide Web:

http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/03-99/039opin.htm

Kelly, K. (1999). Retention vs. social promotion: Schools search for

alternatives. Harvard Education Letter, 15 (1), 1, 3.

Office of the Governor. (1999). Texas student success initiative. [Brochure].

Austin, TX: Office of the Governor, George W. Bush.


Pick, G. (1998). Student retention: Trying to succeed where others failed.

Catalyst, 9, (7), p. 1, 4-8.

Reynolds, A. J. (1992, Summer). Grade retention and school adjustment: An

explanatory analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, (2), 101-121.

Roderick, M. (1995, December). Grade retention and school dropout: Policy

debate and research questions (Research Bulletin No. 15). Washington, DC: Phi

Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research.

Rumberger, R.W. (1987, Summer). High school dropouts: A review of issues

and evidence. Review or Educational Research, 57 (2), 101-121.

Shepard, L. A. &Smith, M. L. (1987, October). Effects of kindergarten

retention at the end of first grade. Psychology in the Schools, 24, 346-357.

Shepard, L. A. & Smith, M. L. (1990). Repeating grades in school: Current

practice and research evidence. Center for Policy Research in Education, Policy

Brief (Issue Brief No. RB-04-1/90). Philadelphia: Center for Policy Research in

Education.

Wheelock, A. (1998). Everybody has to get it: Extra help and support to meet

standards and prevent grade retention. [Online]. Retrieved December 28, 1998,

from the World Wide Web:

http://wwwcsteep.bc.edu/ctestweb/retention/retention2.html

education social promotion what debate

Documents